RAJENDER SINGH Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of petitioners in this writ petition is that application under Section 43A of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (henceforth referred to as Consolidation Act) preferred by respondents No. 4 to 7, i.e., the contesting respondents herein, has been allowed by Consolidation Officer vide order of 24 th December, 2004 without putting petitioners to notice, although they are in possession of Khasra No.703 (0-11), in Village Karala, Delhi, which upon repartition has been assigned new Khasra No.168 (0-11) (hereinafter referred to as the subject land) in the consolidation proceedings of this Village.

(2.) Petitioners had assailed Consolidation Officer's order of 24 th December, 2004 (Annexure P-8 Colly.) urging that Scheme file (Annexure P-7) of this Village showing father of contesting respondents as being scheme kabiz is a fabricated document and that after more than two decades, resort to Section 43A of Consolidation Act has been made to disturb substantive rights of petitioners to subject land which is unwarranted as Section 43A of Consolidation Act is meant only to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the Consolidation Scheme. Financial Commissioner, Delhi vide impugned order of 3 rd February, 2009 (Annexure P-15) dismissed petitioners' revision petition by holding that contesting respondents being scheme kabiz in subject land was never challenged and has attained finality and that petitioners had raised no objection to contesting respondents' application (i.e., of respondents No. 4 to 7 herein) under Section 43A of Consolidation Act being decided by the Consolidation Officer on remand. While recognizing right of scheme kabiz, by relying upon Apex Court decision in Amar Singh, Jagram (dead) by Lrs. vs. Chandgi, 1989 AIR(SC) 413, impugned order upholds Consolidation Officer's order (Annexure P-8 Colly), which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for petitioners had vehemently urged that the alleged list of scheme kabiz (Annexure P-7) is a fictitious document as its bare perusal would show that father's name of contesting respondents had been inserted in the said list later on as occupying subject land, whereas petitioners have been always in possession of the subject land.